Comments by gopking
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Posted on July 1 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This letter just goes to show the ignorance of the voting public who looks to the government to solve every problem.
First, I'll address the Surpreme Court's decision on the Exxon Valdez case. The original case was tried under federal maritime law. That is where the plaintiffs brought suit - maritime court. Now there were several types of damages (money awards) available to the plaintiffs in the case. However, under federal maritime law, punitive damages (money award designed to punish the defendant) are not be any more than a 1 to 1 ratio with regard to actual damages (the actual dollar amount loss suffered by the plaintiffs). In this case, the plaintiffs were awarded $500 million in actual damages and $5 billion in punitive damages. This was an illegal award. When the appellate court reduced the punitive damages award to $2.5 billion, this was still an illegal award. Under federal maritime law, the most the plaintiffs were allowed was $500 million in punitive damages. Now, if the plaintiffs had sued, instead, in Alaska's state court system, they could have been awarded punitive damages of up to 9 times the actuaul damages because our State allows for a punitive to actual damages ratio of 9 to 1. It is nobody's fault but the plaintiffs that they sued in federal maritime court, rather than state court. (Assuming that state courts even had jurisdiction to hear the case). So, please don't blame the Supreme Court for this one. They followed the law - the law that said no more than a 1 to 1 ratio. If you don't like the law, then guess what? Learn it and talk to your elected official. Don't be quite obvisouly igorant of the laws around you then complain when you don't like how they work.
With regard to the price of oil, it is being driven up by speculators. They're afraid there isn't going to be enough oil in the years to come and they're driving up the price as the good gets more scarce. If you want to do something about that, then learn about economics and come up with an intelligent plan on how to prevent speculators from doing so and present it to your elected official. It is our government and we have to make it work for us. Active participation in government is what our founders expected. They did not expect chicken-hawks to write letters to the editor about "the government should do this" and "the government should that" without the writer having ideas of his/her own to present.
On Fed up
Posted on July 1 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love how members of the public, who aren't privied to official police reports/criminal investigations and the internal files of the District Attorney's Office, make judgement calls based upon very limited releases of information in the News-Miner, which many times is incorrect.
Posted on June 13 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope you're as enthusiastic to impeach the President and "take back our freedoms" when its a Democrat in the White House signing off on unconstitutional gun control laws, skyrocketing taxes, and creating additional levels of bureaucracy for more government programs...all while Americans suffer. Somehow I doubt it.
Posted on June 7 at 4:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's inappropriate to allow non-lawyers to become magistrates. They don't know the law, court procedures, rules of evidence, etc. It makes for poor rulings. Lawyers must go through law school and a bar exam to step foot in front of the bar in a courtroom to make sure they're competent. We should expect no less from our judicial officers.
On Former Nenana resident becomes one of the state's youngest magistrates
Posted on June 3 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Congrats to the mayor on marching Fairbanks another step in the direction of socialism. I'm tired of lower 48 solutions to Alaska problems.....don't import socialism to Fairbanks.
Posted on May 3 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Corinne - Yes, you and I are on the exact same page. Thanks for listening.
Posted on May 3 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Additionally, I agree with the wine legislation because it never should have been against the law to begin with to go home with alcohol that you've paid for. I think it's far for asinine to encourage customers to finish a bottle of wine they don't necessarily want at the time and then tell them to get in their cars and drive home.
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with LadyNYC about the proper role of government. The government is not here to save us from ourselves. The government does not know any better how to run my life than I do. After all, the government is made up of fallible people, just like you and me. Therefore, I don't think the government ought to be disproportionately spending collective money. What I mean by that is, if all of OUR equal shares of oil revenue goes to fund the state, that money should not be spent on some classes of society, but not others (if it should even be "spent" on people at all). That's nothing but stealing. As far as I can remember, I didn't vote at the last election with the intent of having my senator or representative take my share and give it to somebody else. The governmnet's duty is not to play Robin Hood. It's inequitbale. That's one of the reasons I disagree with the home weatherization project. It discriminates against people who make "too much." As if getting an education and working hard your whole life to get ahead is some sort of conduct that is punishable.
The other reason I disagree with the weatherization project is that, again, it is not the government's duty to take care of us and maintain our personal property - especially not at the expense of other citizens. The argument in favor of the weatherization is that it benefits all of us by conserving our resources. But the same would be true if the govenrment decided to pay for low-income family's car repairs. One could argue that it benefits all of us because it keeps the roads safer by having well-maintained vehicles on the road.
Where's the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY???? Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish ring a bell??? If you can't afford to properly maintain a house, DON'T BUY ONE! The cost of a group of people's home maintenance should not be society's burden. I know how to spend my own money better than the government does. Stop the handouts! Give us back whatever money is left over at the end of the year (minus a percentage for reserve funds) and let us run our own lives, instead of having the government run them for us.
Posted on May 3 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First, let me say that I agree that the revenues generated from the sale of OUR oil is OUR money. Second, let me also say that the money should be spent on government operations first, and the people, second. This is how we keep our taxes low/nonexistent. Third, I also agree that the leftover (minus someamount set aside in reserve) should be given back to the people in EQUAL amounts, because we all own equal shares in the OIL our state sells. Therefore, I don't believe this is the State giving us back our own money. It is another handout. It is people complaining to the government that they can't make ends meets without governemnt help, without government intervention. What these people fail to see is that the problem isn't a lack of government intervention, it's government intervention that causes the problem. If the State simply gave us back our leftover revenues every year, we'd have more than enough money to spend on energy. Simply giving us back $500 a piece in the name of an "energy crisis" is nothing more than the nanny state playing its game of social planning. I hope I'm articulating myself clearly. Even if the government gave back the $500, they're still holding all the cards. They're still measuring up the damage and "allowing" us to have some of our own money back. It's not a refund - it's welfare. Through this type of program, every new generation looks to the government for more and more answers, instead of looking to themselves. Should the government give us back our unused money? - Yes. But should it be through a government program because we're strapped for cash because of energy prices? - No. That's a government hand-out. It's not a refund simply because it's our money. I see a difference between the two.
Posted on May 3 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another government hand-out should not have been on the list of priorities. The idea to give away money to weatherize homes was bad enough. It is the duty of the people the maintain their own homes, not the duty of the government. It's a slippery slope.
Page 1 of 4 | Next
Posted on July 8 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The author of the letter assumes that every Republican thinks the way Bush does. He forgets that many within the party have stood against Bush's policies. Look at Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr, who has now left the Republican Party and is running for President at a Libertarian. Or, take Ron Paul as another example. He'll never get elected President, but he truly stands out as a maverick in the Republican Party - somebody who truly believes in the backbone principles of the party - limited government, personal freedom. These two politicians are shining examples of why we need to look at personal character, not party name. The two current Dem and Rep presidential candidates are shining examples of why it's time to step outside of the Dem vs. Rep battle. There are other parties out there. There are other candidates. We are the only reason none of them ever get elected. If we would stand up and vote for one of these other candidates, like a Bob Barr, it would send shocking signals to the two mainstream parties.
On Throw them out